Microsoft wants to blend the Xbox and the PC, hinting that there could be PC-style hardware upgrades coming for the Xbox One.

Microsoft is keen to bring Windows and the Xbox together under one brolly - arguing that such a move will make its content available to the widest possible audience. And, potentially, give Sony a drubbed nose into the bargain of course.

Microsoft's Phil Spencer has this to bark: "In other (gaming) ecosystems you get more continuous innovation in hardware that you rarely see in consoles because consoles lock the hardware and software platforms together at the beginning and they ride the generation out for seven years or so.

“We’re allowing ourselves to decouple our software platform from the hardware platform on which it runs. We’ll see us come out with new hardware capability during a generation and allow the same games to run backwards and forward compatible because we have UWAs running on top of UWP. It allows us to focus on hardware innovation without invalidating the games that run on that platform.”

What does any of that even mean? And is it going to be a problem that I don't really know?

PHIL SPENCER IN LIMBO

PHIL 'ER UPHere's what I think Phil Spencer is banging on about: Microsoft is trying to reach a point where all games are universally compatible with both the Xbox One and PC - and in order to do that, the Xbox One will need to be able to keep pace with the constantly evolving state of PC hardware.

In that world, there wouldn't be - say - an Xbox Two. Your Xbox One would just get stuffed with new guts, as needed.

Now...

That's all well and good. But here's a thing: the closest we've had to a model like that in the games industry was when Sega started bolting add-ons to the Mega Drive/Genesis, so that it could compete with the Super NES, 3DO and whatever. We all know how well that turned out.

This is slightly different of course, but I do wonder if Sega's plan failed because console gamers are fundamentally different to PC owners.

I've been a PC owner, and I currently own a Macbook Pro - just powerful enough to play much of what Steam has to offer - but at my core I'm a console gamer. PCs terrify me. I've had horrible experiences with them in the past, and while PC gaming may not be the faff it once was... I remain wary.

​The terror I used to feel when upgrading PCs in the past - just shoving some new RAM in its guts - that I was about to invalidate a £1,000 worth of hardware... I never really want that again.

Consoles might not have the frame rates or shaders of high-end PCs, but the trade-off in the lack of stress is more than worth it for me. And I don't think I'm alone in feeling like that.

GET USED TO THIS VIEW, XBOX KIDS...

NO QUESTIONThere's no question that PC gaming is undergoing a renaissance.

As scared as I might be of re-entering the PC gaming world, I nevertheless look upon it with envious eyes. Albeit in the same way I look at people who seemingly know how to put up wallpaper, or fill out tax returns. Those kinds of people. You know: proper adults.

While I might be able to paper my living room in the end, it wouldn't be without a lot of swearing and crying. Consequently, Id rather hire somebody else to do it. The last thing I want is to do it myself.

Is that the message Microsoft is sending, that console gaming - that gaming full stop - is no longer for kids? This is my fear - Microsoft risks sending gaming back to being elitist, in the way that PC gaming is, in some respects, for those who are more technically minded.

What's more appealing to me, speaking as an idiot who doesn't understand technical stuff, are - at least in theory - the Steam Machines. PCs making the move towards becoming more console-like than the other way around. Doubtless that statement will horrify PC Master Racers. And it doesn't help that the Steam Machines I've already looked at don't really offer the sort of oomph that I want if I'm going to take the plunge into the PC pool.

However, it's undeniable that PCs will never appeal to the same sorts of people who want to play console games. They are niche - albeit niche in a sort of mass-market way - and the barrier that's keeping the rest of us out is the fear that they're too technical. The last thing I want is consoles becoming more like that; gaming only truly came into its own when it got easier for regular people to play games.

As a console gamer, my priority with games is the gameplay, not the graphics. I don't want or need to a machine that I'm going to have to keep upgrading in order to play the latest games. I want something which I know will last me the 7 years that Spencer seems to think is an issue.

"That's all well and good. But here's a thing: the closest we've had to a model like that in the games industry was when Sega started bolting add-ons to the Mega Drive/Genesis, so that it could compete with the Super NES, 3DO and whatever. We all know how well that turned out"

The issue with discussing Sega's attempts is that MegaCD was somewhat of a success that actually had a significant amount of software support and big US and Japanese titles. Sega CD had games like Sonic CD, Lunar and Snatcher after all (Which was one of the reasons why Nintendo started negotiating with Sony as they felt left out that Sega could expand). But the 32X was a result of Sega Japan and Sega America's notorious in fighting where Sega Japan produced the 32X and told Sega America to go market a system with precious little software support from Sega Japan, even and no consumer interest at all. Historical hindsight is great now that Sega employees at the time opened up and said "It was whack, maaaaaaaaaaaaaan"

The thing is, your modern consumer isn't stupid to this like they were in the past. They know the Apple/Android upgrade train. Phone games have settings menus these days. When they buy a console they want the one that plays Call Of Duty "The best". If Microsoft simplified their consoles into a choice "Here's three models. One plays Call Of Duty just fine, the other plays it a little prettier and the premium model unfurls a USA flag out and plays the Star Spangle banner after you win a multiplayer match and you can choose what settings you like". The public would be fine with that as long as its explained like Apple and Samsung explain their range of phones.

And they could do it with no master race sponging about either opening your "Rig". Modular Laptop PC's are now a thing as well with the recent Razer Core holding any graphics card you like and being able to plug into a device that has a "USB-Type C Thunderpolt port" (And breathe) along with Razer's project Christine which just turns it into plugging the right duplo block into the right slot. So making your device modular is becoming even more simple than ever.

It remains to be seen if they can reduce that barrier but this console generation has shown where the consumers priorities lie. They want the box that plays COD and FIFA the best. And Microsoft's going for that gaping gap in the market, m'lord.

Reply

Jopijedd

2/3/2016 12:23:49 pm

I think gaming PCs are pretty damned niche these days. Most vaguely PC like units sold to the mass market is now laptops with very little effort in marketing to push big box PCs to home consumers. Even Microsoft's own marketing (which is confused anyway - "Surface can replace your laptop!", then a month later "TEH NEW SURFACE LAPTOP!") doesn't make any effort to convince people they need to own a gaming PC. To my eyes, they'd far rather sell them an Eggsbox.

The other redeeming factor about consoles is that there is no variation of components. The dark years of PC gaming where some games wouldn't run on certain graphics cards or processors and you need a new version of Direct X every week are not somewhere we need to revisit. I like the idea of a console being a black box that doesn't get opened, although that isn't to say that plug in add-ons shouldn't exist. The whole ethos of console gaming is (as you're correctly pointed out) lower hassle than PC gaming.

But what do i know? My only actively used console at home is a 3DS, which now appears to require another sodding software update for every game i buy. That isn't something a console should need.

Reply

johnnyorgan

7/3/2016 03:50:29 am

"I think gaming PCs are pretty damned niche these days".
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!
I'll stop you right there. Pretty niche? PC gaming and console gaming sales are pretty much on par, with PC games predicted to take the lead in late 2016. So what you are saying or thinking is just unfounded.
"Most vaguely PC like units sold to the mass market is now laptops with very little effort in marketing to push big box PCs to home consumers."
PC gamers tend to build or upgrade their existing machines, rather than buy whole new desktops. They'll upgrade to a faster hard drive, more powerful GPU...Maybe even a new motherboard first so they can overclock what they have...
And they certainly won't buy those machines from a high street electronic store or supermarket. Unless they are stupid.
The slower advancement in tech is also another factor in this. Before 2007, advancements were alarmingly fast. But these days there are PCs from that era still capable of playing most of the latest games now at low settings. There's been no need for some to upgrade every couple of years.
Without boring you with CPU and GPU names, I built a rig two years ago. The AMD CPU and GPU architecture were already 3 years old. So that architecture is now five years old. And it still plays games that the consoles play, but with better graphics and framerates than either console is capable of.
Why buy a new PC when there's no need to? That's why there's a slowing down of sales of PCs in general. Direct X 12, I think, will breath new life into my PC again, making it use the hardware far more efficiently and the components, whether from Nvidea or AMD, more compitable.
And with the latest news from Intel and AMD claiming that both companies are more concerned with power consumption than ooomph of technological advancements, I think my PC is going to hold out and play the latest games for a few years yet.
Frankly, this was unheard of in the past in PC gaming.

Reply

Zugunruhe

2/3/2016 12:28:30 pm

I hope Sony don't go the same way. I don't have the time or inclination for faffing around with hardware upgrades. Throw a new game into the console, download the inevitable patch, and sit back and play - everyone on an equal footing.

Reply

ThatsNoMoon

2/3/2016 12:51:54 pm

I'm not sure he meant that the XBox would go down the user-base-splitting route of separate hardware upgrades. Even MS will have learnt their lesson after Kinect and, to a lesser extent, that HD DVD thing.

It is more likely that XBox Two will be fully backwards compatible with the current generation and simpler titles released within that console's lifespan may be cross-generation.

If I am right, the thinking is that this will encourage more digital sales as, if consumers can trust their entire libraries won't disappear with each new machine, they are more likely to upgrade. Unlike what we saw with the shambles of the XBone launch.

More digital=more control and much more profits. They wanted this sort of shift with the XBone but couldn't give us a half decent reason why we should go along with it. That "revolution" was cancelled but you can be sure they did not forget about it.

This cross-generational compatibility could be the big selling point to get consumers interested in a digital-only console.

Reply

Mr Biffo

2/3/2016 01:01:46 pm

You might be right. But surely... if you go down that path there will come a point at which games get too complicated for older hardware, and they'll need to upgrade? But if there's no branded Box for them to buy off the shelf... won't that discourage people to stick with the brand a bit?

Reply

ThatsNoMoon

2/3/2016 01:24:06 pm

The industry has been making noises for ages now about how disruptive new hardware can be. For good and bad, of course.

If I am right (and it's a huge if) they want to go down the iPad route where they can have an exciting new product every year or two but maintain that "ecosystem" all the marketing types love to go on about.

Older hardware not running the latest stuff is par for the course these days. In the App Store it will tell you if your device can run something before purchase. I would imagine MS would implement something similar if they went down this route.

ThatsNoMoon

2/3/2016 01:15:45 pm

Just to clarify, this would mean that MS could release new revisions of their consoles every year if they wanted, or even licence the hardware/OS to 3rd parties like TV manufacturers.

In ten years time we could be seeing articles like "This Year's XBox - should I upgrade?" alongside the usual "The New iPad - Money or Sense, You Choose!" stuff we see today.

Reply

PanamaJoe

2/3/2016 02:08:46 pm

It would seem MS are eager to emulate the smartphone and tablet world of having differing hardware options and shorter generations where people upgrade every 2 or 3 years. This is good for Microsoft but not good for the consumer.

I don't believe it will be the same level of modularity or complexity as PCs but it will create an atmosphere of want and envy among the console user-base that we would be better off without.

It will also diminish the level playing field with online multiplayer games if new games don't run as well on lesser hardware. Again, this only creates an issue for devs and consumers that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Reply

Superbeast

2/3/2016 04:44:26 pm

Why isn't it good for me?

I want the latest tech. The level playing field isn't really my problem. It's not level anyway as I plug my console into an ultra low latency gaming monitor!

Same goes with envy. Only have a ford focus instead of a Ferrari? Well there you have envy and no level playing field when it comes to impressing women!

That's life! It's not fair! Work harder, earn more! Compete!

Choice is not anti consumer.

Reply

PanamaJoe

2/3/2016 06:33:12 pm

Speaking broadly here, I would say most latest gen console owners are perfectly happy with the performance of their machines. For hi-tech enthusiasts the PC gaming market has it covered.

I'm an avid PC gamer myself, but often it seems like the reason I'm upgrading hardware is because a game runs too slowly. And the reason it runs slowly is because the game was designed to be able to look so much better on higher spec machines. With consoles you rarely get a game that suffers from poor FPS because the developers ensure it runs fine on a fixed spec machine. Having more hardware offerings could bring about this same hassle and pressure to upgrade for a lot of casual players who would otherwise be content with what they had.

Penyrolewen

2/3/2016 09:50:48 pm

Depends if you're interested in women who are impressed by penis substitutes. Compete if it's a competition you think is worthwhile. Work harder if you enjoy your work. Choose your own path, don't let others' value judgements choose it for you. Play what you want to play. You do what you do, they do what they do.

Superbeast 37

2/3/2016 07:07:50 pm

"I would say most latest gen console owners are perfectly happy with the performance of their machines."

As I said in my main post further down, that is exactly what people said when the current gen was about to launch and all the doom mongers said the new consoles would flop because everyone was happy with their 360's and PS3's.

In the end it turned out that consumers were seriously thirsty for more power and they sold like hot cakes.

We saw Sony overturn MS's lead in the US by having the most powerful console.

We see constant complaints about the performance of the existing consoles and the whole "resolution gate" thing. Not to mention the disappointment over graphical downgrades to so many games from preview footage.

I think a lot of people have money to burn, want better graphics but can't be dealing with the problems and space issue of the mini nuclear reactor I have next to my feet! Not to mention its own dedicated desk, monitor, controls and speakers etc. Sure they could skip some of that and put the PC by their TV but it would look silly and Ubisoft games still wouldn't work on it! :D

Reply

Super bad Advice

2/3/2016 02:12:13 pm

I think what's really at play here is Microsoft's usual shenanigans - trying to turn gaming into some sort of 'subscription model'. Only now, it will be you need to buy updated guts every 6 months or Halo 7 won't run as well.

It's also this: well stupid. Two of the strengths of console gaming are that everyone gets the same experience, and devs can write to 1 hardware spec. If you start fannying about with different settings and different capabilities they'll just optimise for the highest end stuff as that'll be the showcase version. Then it's lose/lose for anyone who can't afford the best.

I'm sure it also has a lot to do with Microsoft's increasing desperation to keep the PC and - more specifically - Windows and itself relevant. It's phone platform is dead on its arse after they took what could have been great (if niche) in Nokia and let it wither like a lungfish trapped in a solarium. People are increasingly doing stuff on smart devices, tablets and phones and watches and just don't need a full PC, especially one with a naggy, unpopular operating system that the maker seems determined to shoehorn onto everything and anything it can. Apple are the only PC manufacturer showing growth while everyone else scrabbles round for scraps. It's no wonder they're trying to fuse one of their few remaining successes to the carcass of one of their increasingly clapped-out cash cows. I'm just not sure they have the best interests of gamers at heart at all.

Reply

Chris

2/3/2016 02:13:18 pm

The good thing about consoles is that if I own a PS4 or a Wii U or an Xthingy, I know that games for those platforms will unequivocally work on them. If you start offering upgrades then quickly consoles turn into the sort of mess PC gaming is in. As in:
"I want to buy this new PC game... but I'm not sure it'll work on my PC."
"Have you looked up the required specs?"
"Yes, I eventually found them on some random website but I don't really understand whether an Nvidia 8456349 is better than my Radeon 2348456, and if my 79-core AMD at 39GHz if faster or slower than an Intel Quark 70-core at 42GHz."
Or whatever. You get the idea.

Reply

RG

2/3/2016 02:26:28 pm

That sounds like a high spec PC - you should be fine!

Reply

Toaster

2/3/2016 06:53:47 pm

Nowadays all your games will be linked to your Steam, Blizzard or (ugh) Origin account. If you buy a game and your PC isn't running it quite as well as you'd like: upgrade! Even if you junk your PC and start again all you need is your various logins and you're ready to go. There's no danger at all.
PS: The specs for any game are listed on the same page you buy it from, it's not hard.

Reply

Chris

3/3/2016 12:56:46 am

Well... yes. But that kind of misses the point.

And I really have had to go searching for hardware requirements for games. If it's on Steam then the specs are listed. If it's a physical copy on Amazon or somewhere, then there's a possibility that they're not.

Unless something needs a keyboard and mouse to be playable, I buy the console version anyway. Less peril.

CrispyF

2/3/2016 02:44:05 pm

Oh god, I've got a headache now. The exact reason why I buy consoles not PCs is that you don't have to worry if a game will run or not. Going by this information, it's PS4 for me by the time I get round to actually spending money on a replacement for the old sexbox.

Reply

Superbeast 37

2/3/2016 04:37:25 pm

Console buyers clearly care about performance. They spend money upgrading other gadgets on a regular basis.

There is great demand from those who don't want the trouble of a PC but have money and don't want to slum it with the few stick in the muds who are happy with 5 year old tech.

The Android model is where it's going to go. Some people will refuse to buy the "Note 5" console and some will be hanging on to their S3 Mini for 7 years.

They will be out voted by the majority who will consider £500 every two or three years to be fair enough for a big step in performance.

Beware the vocal minority. Plenty of clowns talked smack prior to the XO/PS4 launch about how the existing consoles were perfectly good and the next gen wouldn't sell well

Well they got totally BTFO.

Not only has this gen been a great success, but consumers voted for the most powerful machine and are actually grumbling about the lack of performance.

Because the machines will all be compatible but with detail sliders (or presets), it won't split the market as far as games publishing goes. Instead there will be high volume mid spec models and lower volume niche models at the high and low end. Games will run on almost all of them bar the very bottom level that goes obsolete.

You will literally get what you pay for. Those that don't want to spend can languish in upscaled 900p 30fps, others can enjoy 1080p 60 and better lighting etc.

I'm glad that no longer will others dictate my experience.

Reply

stef

5/3/2016 10:28:08 pm

As long as frame rates are consistent in online games and some versions are just prettier i really don't have a problem with this upgrade system

If there's one* area where I don't trust Microsoft, it's hardware, so this approach doesn't fill me with confidence, even if it didn't smell of the Sega debacle.

*(it is difficult to limit it to one area, I admit.)

Reply

Alastair

3/3/2016 04:26:00 pm

I must be getting old, I'm agreed on the lack of stress a console provides, even if I bemoan the lack of mods you can throw at a game and the half working disc drive on my Xbox that I could replace in minutes on an old PC.

I did wonder why xboxes didn't start off as a basic, PC compatible machine. A cut down OS and single hardware specification that could handle PC games (action orientated at least I suppose) and some easy networking. PCs would play the same games at lesser and higher levels of graphical splendour over the lifetime of the console.

I was never sure what problem that was supposed to solve, other than to make it easy to replace parts yourself on the console.

Reply

jason

5/3/2016 10:25:54 am

PC is the only platform still offering the spirit from the olden days of gaming, that being experimenting and pushing the boundary's of the hobby. I think after 30 or more years of gaming, I would have possibly quit if it wasn't for PC. I would rather console and PC remain completely separate entity's so as not to ruin the only remaining gateway to a different platform. There is no argument that consoles, Nintendo aside, are just the same things in a different box these days. Mostly offering PC style games and franchise just at a lower specification and limiting you on how you choose to play games.

Reply

dab88

7/3/2016 01:52:23 pm

Yeah, I agree! There's enough kids on Steam atm to have a profound effect on the experience compared to a few years ago.

Reply

ChorltonWheelie

5/3/2016 11:27:19 am

The canard here is that the pc is niche.
Forbes predict pc gaming revenues will hit $24Biiiiiiilion in 2017. The pc market absolutely dwarves all the consoles put together.
The industries corporations and journalists have been desperate to kill the pc, constantly proclaiming its death at the hands of "consumer friendly" consoles. They want a locked down, predictable and controllable market for themselves.
Well, they've failed....spectacularly so. The thriving pc gaming scene is a massive victory for us, the consumers in the face of millions spent on advertising and journalistic cajoling from multinational corporations.
We will build our rigs, we will innovate, we will push gaming forward and we won't go away

Reply

dab88

7/3/2016 01:48:38 pm

Indeed! M$ has done everything to separate their PC and console business.... until they concluded that the PC is going nowhere and they can't kill it.